Malnutrition-Inflammation Score VS Phase Angle in the Era of GLIM Criteria: A Cross-Sectional Study among Hemodialysis Patients in UAE

• Published in: Nutrients 2019-11, Vol.11 (11), p.2771
• Main Authors: Karavetian, Mirey, Salhab, Nada, Rizk, Rana, Poulia, Kalliopi Anna
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Adult; Aged; Body composition; Body fat; Body mass index; Clinical medicine; Cross-Sectional Studies; Dietitians; Electric Impedance; Ethics; Family medical history; Female; Females; Health sciences; Hemodialysis; Hospitals; Humans; Inflammation; Inflammation - etiology; Kidney diseases; Leadership; Life sciences; Male; Males; Malnutrition; Malnutrition - diagnosis; Malnutrition - epidemiology; Malnutrition - etiology; Middle Aged; Nutrition; Nutrition Assessment; Nutritional Status; Parenteral nutrition; Patients; Prevalence; Public health; Renal Dialysis - adverse effects; ROC Curve; Sensitivity and Specificity; Severity of Illness Index; Statistical analysis; Statistical methods; Subgroups
• ISSN: 2072-6643; 2072-6643
• DOI: 10.3390/nu11112771

(1) Background: Malnutrition is prevalent in hemodialysis (HD) patients and is associated with an increased risk of morbidity and mortality. The aim of this study was to explore the prevalence of malnutrition using the malnutrition-inflammation score (MIS) and phase angle (PhA) and compare their concordance with the new Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition (GLIM) criteria for the diagnosis of malnutrition. (2) Methods: Seventy HD patients were assessed. Malnutrition was diagnosed based on the GLIM criteria and MIS questionnaire. The agreement between the diagnostic tools (MIS, PhA derived from the bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA), and GLIM criteria) was assessed. The optimal gender-specific cutoff points were identified for the PhA according to the GLIM criteria. (3) Results: Almost half of the sample was diagnosed as malnourished according to the MIS (48.57%) and GLIM criteria (54.29%). A fair agreement was observed between the GLIM criteria, MIS (k = 0.202), and PhA (k = 0.279) among the malnourished patients. The PhA had better sensitivity but worse specificity compared to the MIS. The optimum cutoff points of PhA to detect malnutrition according to the GLIM criteria were a PhA value of ≤5.7° for males and ≤3.8° for females. (4) Conclusion: The MIS performed slightly better than PhA in the diagnosis of malnutrition among HD patients within the spectrum of the GLIM criteria.